Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 130 A.D.3d 1045 (2015)

Citation: Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 130 A.D.3d 1045 (2015)
Parent Document: Velasquez v. New York State Division of Housing & Community Renewal, 130 A.D.3d 1045 (2015)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2015-07-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6194996/velasquez-v-new-york-state-divi... ↗

Full Text

1,176 chars

In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner determined that the Marrones were not entitled to charge a first stabilization rent because all they had to do to create the four-bedroom apartment was to unseal the doorway. However, this conclusion is irrational in that it ignores both the substance of the first stabilization rent policy and its rationale. Although no structural construction work was performed by the Marrones to make the apartment a four-bedroom apartment, the first stabilization rent policy was not described, in DHCR’s own terminology, in terms of the work performed to create a new unit or the cost incurred by the owner. Rather, in DHCR’s terms, the first stabilization rent policy applies “[w]here an owner significantly changes the perimeter and dimensions of an existing housing accommodation” (NY St Div of Hous & Community Renewal Operational Bulletin 95-2 at 4). Indeed, the first stabilization rent policy was not intended to permit an owner to recoup the cost of improvements, as the Rent Stabilization Code provides a formula for rent increases based upon major capital improvements (see Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR] § 2522.4 [a] [2], [4]).

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text